(16-11-2012 09:46 PM)BryanS Wrote: You have the timing a bit wrong here. According to the news postings, the CEO was paid $750k until right before they filed bankruptcy again. It was a clear attempt by the company to try to pay their management a retention bonus as they prepared to file again for bankruptcy--which the story I posted made clear would be improper and was therefore challenged by creditors.

You are so right--it is so much better to have no job at all rather than one with a 8% pay cut. That is such a thoughtful, caring attitude towards those poor workers who would have had to otherwise suffer the indignity of full employment. Now that the company's assets and brands will be sold--no doubt to a large foreign company like Mexico's Bimboo--perhaps the bakers union employees could emigrate to Mexico where those jobs will be sure to permanently relocate?

when is cutting pay of the common worker a good thing? And what economic fantasy land do you live in to think that it was necessary to cut wages to even stay in business?

You seem to think that the cut was necessary to stay in business.

The bankruptcy court judge thought so. Based on the financial condition of the company as revealed by independent analysis provided by professionals offered by both the company and the unions. The bakers union decided to stay silent until after the deal was negotiated and then intended to act as spoilers. They lost--unfortunately they took everyone down with them.

(16-11-2012 09:45 PM)themanchicken Wrote: It must be right to be the only guy with the right answer. "The Teamsters" aren't a homogenous group of people. They're a vary diverse group, and it's important to remember that while unions are a great means for organizing workers, their leadership tends to be reactionary and often quite conservative.

Some lefties won't listen to anything coming from a conservative, so I cited the Teamsters as a source that you might actually consider on the merits of their criticism. By don't just take their word for it--the bankruptcy court judge in the case also agreed that the pay cuts negotiated over an 18 month long process also ruled that the new contracts were the only way to maintain solvency.

(16-11-2012 09:45 PM)themanchicken Wrote: It must be right to be the only guy with the right answer. "The Teamsters" aren't a homogenous group of people. They're a vary diverse group, and it's important to remember that while unions are a great means for organizing workers, their leadership tends to be reactionary and often quite conservative.

Some lefties won't listen to anything coming from a conservative, so I cited the Teamsters as a source that you might actually consider on the merits of their criticism. By don't just take their word for it--the bankruptcy court judge in the case also agreed that the pay cuts negotiated over an 18 month long process also ruled that the new contracts were the only way to maintain solvency.

Why are you such an pompous ass as to deride anybody who stands up for workers as "lefties"? Thinking critically precludes sticking people into boxes and passing judgement based on that.

(16-11-2012 09:50 PM)I and I Wrote: when is cutting pay of the common worker a good thing? And what economic fantasy land do you live in to think that it was necessary to cut wages to even stay in business?

You seem to think that the cut was necessary to stay in business.

The bankruptcy court judge thought so. Based on the financial condition of the company as revealed by independent analysis provided by professionals offered by both the company and the unions. The bakers union decided to stay silent until after the deal was negotiated and then intended to act as spoilers. They lost--unfortunately they took everyone down with them.

That's okay. The workers had more of a right to determine the course of that company than the leeches who took all the money out of it. They're the ones who actually made something. Their union was elected, the bosses were not. At the end of the day, the company did not go broke... they just decided that they wanted the money for themselves rather than making sure their workers could make rent, pay for doctors visits, feed their kids, etc.

(16-11-2012 09:51 PM)BryanS Wrote: Some lefties won't listen to anything coming from a conservative, so I cited the Teamsters as a source that you might actually consider on the merits of their criticism. By don't just take their word for it--the bankruptcy court judge in the case also agreed that the pay cuts negotiated over an 18 month long process also ruled that the new contracts were the only way to maintain solvency.

Why are you such an pompous ass as to deride anybody who stands up for workers as "lefties"? Thinking critically precludes sticking people into boxes and passing judgement based on that.

Just returning the favor. It was certainly the tone of the thread that caused me to raise the level of snark when the comment was made that "Lets take bets on how much longer it is til this guy Bryan S spouts the classic all encompassing defense of capitalism...."

Is snark only ok when used on capitalists? Not your comment, I know. But my statement about "some lefties" is nonetheless true. And it is simply inaccurate for union apologists to assume that all unions stand up for workers all the time. The bakers union did not do that this time.

I can be pretty polite most of the time, but I find unyielding adherence to political doctrine deserves a little mockery, and yes, a little ass-hattery sometimes

(16-11-2012 09:55 PM)themanchicken Wrote: Why are you such an pompous ass as to deride anybody who stands up for workers as "lefties"? Thinking critically precludes sticking people into boxes and passing judgement based on that.

Just returning the favor. It was certainly the tone of the thread that caused me to raise the level of snark when the comment was made that "Lets take bets on how much longer it is til this guy Bryan S spouts the classic all encompassing defense of capitalism...."

Is snark only ok when used on capitalists? Not your comment, I know. But my statement about "some lefties" is nonetheless true. And it is simply inaccurate for union apologists to assume that all unions stand up for workers all the time. The bakers union did not do that this time.

I can be pretty polite most of the time, but I find unyielding adherence to political doctrine deserves a little mockery, and yes, a little ass-hattery sometimes

I'll try to dial it down a bit here on out.

I didn't say that man, please don't project the words of others onto me. I stand with the workers, you stand with the bosses. I got it. No reason for either of us to be dicks about it, but it is important for us to recognize this difference which we are unlikely to move each other on.

What you call political doctrine, I call making sure that the people in my community can afford to survive and send their kids to school. Critical thinking requires a certain degree of material security. It is damned hard to question dogma when you're being forced-fed it by the lady handing you your tray at the soup kitchen.

(16-11-2012 10:00 PM)themanchicken Wrote: That's okay. The workers had more of a right to determine the course of that company than the leeches who took all the money out of it. They're the ones who actually made something. Their union was elected, the bosses were not. At the end of the day, the company did not go broke... they just decided that they wanted the money for themselves rather than making sure their workers could make rent, pay for doctors visits, feed their kids, etc.

Not so much the company as the investors (the largest by the way just happened to be a prominent left wing venture capitalist who rescued the company the first time, saving it from being bought out by a foreign company). http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/0...-bankrupt/